DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/03/2026.
3. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 15-22 are pending. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 15-22 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 19-20 are amended. Claims 2-3, 11, 14 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are newly added.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 15-22 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 04/19/2019 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below
Claim Objections
6. Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Mondino et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0175866 A1, hereinafter “’866”) in view of Koban et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0388251 A1, hereinafter “’251”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 74 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [0002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1270 refrigerant is greater than zero and less than at or about 56 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant.
However, ‘251 teaches refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) and propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent based on the total refrigerant composition (i.e., less than 25 wt%; Page 2, [0018]). ‘251’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type and the amount of R1270 (variables) in the refrigerant composition for an HVACR system (affect) can effectively improve the ozone-depletion potential (ODP), and global warming potential (GWP) (property) (Page 5, [0079]), establishing that the type and the amount of the refrigerant, and the ODP and GWP are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the type and the amount of R1270 is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘251 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant ). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘251 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claims 4-5: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 in view of ‘251 does not expressly teach the coefficient of performance of the refrigerant composition is at or about or greater than 95%, preferably 100% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant.
However, since ‘866 in view of ‘251 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the coefficient of performance would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance that is at or about or greater than 95%, preferably 100% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘251 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 in view of ‘251 does not expressly teach the refrigerant composition has a condenser discharge temperature that is at or about or within 10° K of a condenser discharge temperature of R23 refrigerant.
However, since ‘866 in view of ‘251 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the condenser discharge temperature would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a condenser discharge temperature that is at or about or within 10° K of a condenser discharge temperature of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘251 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claims 7-8: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘251 teaches the refrigerant composition, wherein the refrigerant composition has a temperature glide of at or about or less than 5° K, preferably at or about or less than 2.5°K (Page 2, [0025]).
Regarding claim 9: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘251 teaches the refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2 propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent (i.e., less than 25 wt%) based on the total refrigerant composition (Page 2, [0018]).
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 36 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘251 teaches the refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2 propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent (i.e., less than 25 wt%) based on the total refrigerant composition (Page 2, [0018]).
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 36 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘251 teaches the refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2 propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent (i.e., less than 25 wt%) based on the total refrigerant composition (Page 2, [0018]).
Regarding claim 13: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R170 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 50 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘251 teaches the refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2 propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent (i.e., less than 25 wt%) based on the total refrigerant composition (Page 2, [0018]).
Regarding claim 19: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches a method of making a refrigerant composition for an HVACR system, the method comprising: gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 74 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [0002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1270 refrigerant is greater than zero and less than at or about 56 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant.
However, ‘251 teaches refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) and propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent based on the total refrigerant composition (i.e., less than 25 wt%; Page 2, [0018]). ‘251’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type and the amount of R1270 (variables) in the refrigerant composition for an HVACR system (affect) can effectively improve the ozone-depletion potential (ODP), and global warming potential (GWP) (property) (Page 5, [0079]), establishing that the type and the amount of the refrigerant, and the ODP and GWP are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the type and the amount of R1270 is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘251 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant ). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘251 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘251 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches a method of retrofitting an existing refrigerant in an HV ACR system, the method comprising: gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 74 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [0002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1270 refrigerant is greater than zero and less than at or about 56 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant.
However, ‘251 teaches refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) and propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent based on the total refrigerant composition (i.e., less than 25 wt%; Page 2, [0018]). ‘251’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type and the amount of R1270 (variables) in the refrigerant composition for an HVACR system (affect) can effectively improve the ozone-depletion potential (ODP), and global warming potential (GWP) (property) (Page 5, [0079]), establishing that the type and the amount of the refrigerant, and the ODP and GWP are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the type and the amount of R1270 is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘251 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant ). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘251 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 1975).
10. Claims 1, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Mondino et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0175866 A1, hereinafter “’866”) in view of Yuzawa et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0018135 A1, hereinafter “’135”).
Regarding claims 1,14-16: ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1132a refrigerant, wherein the R1132a refrigerant is more than zero and at or about or less than 82 wt%, preferably 62 wt%, and more preferably 53 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant.
However, ‘135 teaches a binary refrigerating apparatus comprising a high-temperature-side refrigeration circuit and a low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit, which achieves a refrigerating capacity of −80° C. or lower by condensing a refrigerant in the low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit with a refrigerant passing through a cascade condenser in the high-temperature-side refrigeration circuit, wherein a refrigerant composition containing difluoro ethylene (R1132a) and hexafluoroethane (R116) is used as the refrigerant in the low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit, so that an evaporation temperature reaches a temperature lower than both boiling points of difluoroethylene (R1132a) and hexafluoroethane (R116) (Page 1, [0015]; Page 6, [Claim 1). ‘135 teaches a refrigerant composition in which difluoroethylene (R1132a)/hexafluoroethane (R116)/carbon dioxide (R744)=27.6 to 29.2% by mass/56.8 to 68.4% by mass/4.0 to 14.0% by mass are mixed is used as the refrigerant in the low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit. The added amount of hexafluoroethane (R116) is high to be non-combustible; the GWP is as small as about 8000; and a low temperature lower than −80° C. can be achieved. Furthermore, a further effect in which the COP does not decrease, oil deterioration and sludge do not occur, and a risk of explosion is not caused is more surely exerted (Page 3, [0032]).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since
it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘135 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘135 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
11. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Mondino et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0175866 A1, hereinafter “’866”) in view of Yuzawa et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0018135 A1, hereinafter “’135”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Low et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0195321 A1, hereinafter “’321”).
Regarding claim 21: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘321 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 36 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘251 teaches the refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2 propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent (i.e., less than 25 wt%) based on the total refrigerant composition (Page 2, [0018]). ‘866 in view of ‘321 does not expressly teach R170 refrigerant is at or greater than about 50% of the refrigerant composition, such that the refrigerant composition has a temperature glide of at or about or less than 10° K.
However, ‘321 teaches a composition (Page 1, [0001[) comprising: (i) 1,1-difluoroethene (R-1132a), (ii) a second component selected from the group consisting of hexafluoroethane (R-116), ethane (R-170) and mixtures thereof, and, optionally (iii) carbon dioxide (CO2, R-744) (Page 2, [0034]; Page 21, Claim 1), wherein the composition comprising from about 40 to about 60% by weight of ethane and from about 40 to about 60% by weight of R-1132a (Page 2, [0030]; Page 21, Claim 19) with benefit of providing alternative refrigerants having improved properties such as low GWP, yet possessing acceptable refrigeration performance, flammability characteristics and toxicology. There is also a need to provide alternative refrigerants that may be used in existing devices such as refrigeration devices with little or no modification (Page 1, [0017]). ‘321 teaches the compositions, particularly those comprising R-1132a, R-116 and CO2, advantageously have a temperature glide in an evaporator or a condenser of less than 10° K. Preferably such compositions have a temperature glide of less than about 5 °K., and even more preferably less than about 1° K. (Page 4, [0065]). ‘321’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type and the amount of R170 (variables) in the refrigerant composition (affect) can effectively improve properties such as low GWP, possessing acceptable refrigeration performance, flammability characteristics and toxicology (property) (Page 1, [0017]), establishing that the type and the amount of the refrigerant, and the GWP, acceptable refrigeration performance, flammability characteristics and toxicology are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the type and the amount of R170 is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
12. Claims 1, 17-18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Mondino et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0175866 A1, hereinafter “’866”) in view of Low et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0195321 A1, hereinafter “’321”).
Regarding claims 1,17-18: ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1132a refrigerant, wherein the R1132a refrigerant is more than zero and at or about or less than 82 wt%, such that the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant, and the R170 refrigerant is at or about or greater than 15 wt%, preferably 36 wt% to less than 100 wt% of the refrigerant composition.
However, ‘321 teaches a composition (Page 1, [0001[) comprising: (i) 1,1-difluoroethene (R-1132a), (ii) a second component selected from the group consisting of hexafluoroethane (R-116), ethane (R-170) and mixtures thereof, and, optionally (iii) carbon dioxide (CO2, R-744) (Page 2, [0034]; Page 21, Claim 1), wherein the composition comprising from about 40 to about 60% by weight of ethane and from about 40 to about 60% by weight of R-1132a (Page 2, [0030]; Page 21, Claim 19) with benefit of providing alternative refrigerants having improved properties such as low GWP, yet possessing acceptable refrigeration performance, flammability characteristics and toxicology. There is also a need to provide alternative refrigerants that may be used in existing devices such as refrigeration devices with little or no modification (Page 1, [0017]).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since
it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘321 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘321 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 22: The disclosure of ‘866 in view of ‘321 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1132a refrigerant, wherein the R1132a refrigerant is more than zero and at or about or less than 62 wt%, the R170 refrigerant is at or about or greater than 15 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 95% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant, and
However, ‘321 teaches a composition (Page 1, [0001[) comprising: (i) 1,1-difluoroethene (R-1132a), (ii) a second component selected from the group consisting of hexafluoroethane (R-116), ethane (R-170) and mixtures thereof, and, optionally (iii) carbon dioxide (CO2, R-744) (Page 2, [0034]; Page 21, Claim 1), wherein the composition comprising from about 40 to about 60% by weight of ethane and from about 40 to about 60% by weight of R-1132a (Page 2, [0030]; Page 21, Claim 19) with benefit of providing alternative refrigerants having improved properties such as low GWP, yet possessing acceptable refrigeration performance, flammability characteristics and toxicology. There is also a need to provide alternative refrigerants that may be used in existing devices such as refrigeration devices with little or no modification (Page 1, [0017]).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since
it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘321 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 95% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘321 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that combination of Mondino‘866 and Koban ‘251 do not teach or suggest the above features of claims 1, 19, and 20. ‘866 fails to teach or suggest a gaseous mixture in which the R1270 is less than at or about 56 wt% of the composition, and nothing in ‘251 even suggests a combination of R1150, R170, and R1270, and
‘866 and ‘251 are also both silent with respect to R1132a.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It is submitted that that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).In this case nevertheless, the combination ‘866 in view of ‘251 is deemed to teach a refrigerant composition for an HVACR system comprising: R1150 refrigerant; R170 refrigerant; and a third refrigerant being R1270 refrigerant as the recited claimed. ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 teaches the refrigerant composition the R1150 refrigerant is more than zero and less than at or about 74 wt% of the refrigerant composition (Page 1, [0002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1270 refrigerant is greater than zero and less than at or about 56 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant.
However, ‘251 teaches refrigerant compositions (Page 1, [0001]) including 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) and propylene (R-1270) in the amount from 1 to 10 weight percent based on the total refrigerant composition (i.e., less than 25 wt%; Page 2, [0018]). ‘251’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type and the amount of R1270 (variables) in the refrigerant composition for an HVACR system (affect) can effectively improve the ozone-depletion potential (ODP), and global warming potential (GWP) (property) (Page 5, [0079]), establishing that the type and the amount of the refrigerant, and the ODP and GWP are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the type and the amount of R1270 is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘251 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a capacity that is at or about or less than 25% different from the capacity of R23 refrigerant ). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘251 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
It is further submitted that the combination of ‘866 in view of ‘251 does not require the R1132a refrigerant since the claims 1, 19-20 language only require the third refrigerant being one of R1270 refrigerant or R1122a refringent.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Yuzawa’135 is silent with respect to R1150 refrigerant and R170 refrigerant. For example, nothing in Yuzawa even suggests R1132a refrigerant being suitable in combination with R1150 refrigerant and R170 refrigerant.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant's argument unpersuasive because it fails to recognize that the rejection is based on the combination of references, not any single reference alone. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981). ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1132a refrigerant, wherein the R1132a refrigerant is more than zero and at or about or less than 82 wt%, preferably 62 wt%, and more preferably 53 wt% of the refrigerant composition such that the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant.
However, ‘135 teaches a binary refrigerating apparatus comprising a high-temperature-side refrigeration circuit and a low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit, which achieves a refrigerating capacity of −80° C. or lower by condensing a refrigerant in the low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit with a refrigerant passing through a cascade condenser in the high-temperature-side refrigeration circuit, wherein a refrigerant composition containing difluoro ethylene (R1132a) and hexafluoroethane (R116) is used as the refrigerant in the low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit, so that an evaporation temperature reaches a temperature lower than both boiling points of difluoroethylene (R1132a) and hexafluoroethane (R116) (Page 1, [0015]; Page 6, [Claim 1). ‘135 teaches a refrigerant composition in which difluoroethylene (R1132a)/hexafluoroethane (R116)/carbon dioxide (R744)=27.6 to 29.2% by mass/56.8 to 68.4% by mass/4.0 to 14.0% by mass are mixed is used as the refrigerant in the low-temperature-side refrigeration circuit. The added amount of hexafluoroethane (R116) is high to be non-combustible; the GWP is as small as about 8000; and a low temperature lower than −80° C. can be achieved. Furthermore, a further effect in which the COP does not decrease, oil deterioration and sludge do not occur, and a risk of explosion is not caused is more surely exerted (Page 3, [0032]).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since
it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘135 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘135 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Low’321 is silent with respect to R1150 refrigerant. For example, nothing in Low even suggests utilizing R1132a refrigerant and R170 refrigerant in a combination with R1150 refrigerant.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant's argument unpersuasive because it fails to recognize that the rejection is based on the combination of references, not any single reference alone. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981). ‘866 teaches a refrigerant composition comprising gaseous mixtures that are useful as replacement or alternative refrigerants for the mixtures R404A, R507A and R407C (Page 1, [0001]). The gaseous mixture selected from the group consisting of: propylene (R1270) in a concentration from 90% to 99% by weight and a gas selected from the group consisting of butene, ethylene (R1150) and ethane (R170) or mixtures thereof in a concentration from 1% to 10% by weight (Page 1, [002], Table 1; Page 4, Claim 1). ‘866 does not expressly teach R1132a refrigerant, wherein the R1132a refrigerant is more than zero and at or about or less than 82 wt%, such that the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant, and the R170 refrigerant is at or about or greater than 15 wt%, preferably 36 wt% to less than 100 wt% of the refrigerant composition.
However, ‘321 teaches a composition (Page 1, [0001[) comprising: (i) 1,1-difluoroethene (R-1132a), (ii) a second component selected from the group consisting of hexafluoroethane (R-116), ethane (R-170) and mixtures thereof, and, optionally (iii) carbon dioxide (CO2, R-744) (Page 2, [0034]; Page 21, Claim 1), wherein the composition comprising from about 40 to about 60% by weight of ethane and from about 40 to about 60% by weight of R-1132a (Page 2, [0030]; Page 21, Claim 19) with benefit of providing alternative refrigerants having improved properties such as low GWP, yet possessing acceptable refrigeration performance, flammability characteristics and toxicology. There is also a need to provide alternative refrigerants that may be used in existing devices such as refrigeration devices with little or no modification (Page 1, [0017]).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since
it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Pertaining to the refrigerant composition capacity, since ‘866 in view of ‘321 teaches substantially identical refrigerant composition as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the capacity would be expected to be the same as claimed (i.e., the refrigerant composition has a coefficient of performance ("COP") that is at or about or more than about 85% of the coefficient of performance of R23 refrigerant). If there is any difference between the product of ‘866 in view of ‘321 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical composition, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., the refrigerant composition for an HVACR system) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is submitted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
06/23/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights